Pages

Friday, August 21, 2009

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. Read more

Well, Arthur Frommer is a professional traveler, and I don't know where he lives, but I am certain his ideals are shared by many collectivists. And if exercising your right to keep and bear arms at a political function is enough for a boycott, surely it will work frighten those fascists back to their self-created hellholes.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.

A couple comments on this story. I'm not sure who Hal Turner is, but it doesn't matter. The federal government has long been known to have spies and plants and informants who infiltrate groups and incite them to do things they normally wouldn't.

Saul Landau writes:

Worse, FBI “informants” often doubled as “agents provocateurs.” In the 1960s, anti war and civil rights activists learned to suspect those proposing violence and labeling skeptics “chickenshit.” Such advocates regularly turned out to be FBI infiltrators. I recall a meeting during which one man screamed: “Let’s kill a pig. That’ll wake people up and show ‘em, we mean business.” Inevitably, such statements gained the support of a few nuts and indeed some violent scenarios actually took shape.

By placing such characters inside the anti-Vietnam War and Civil Rights movements, the Bureau hoped to provoke violence so as to show the public that anti-war and civil rights activists were dangerous. Most citizens opposed the war and sympathized with anti-war protests, but drew a sharp line at violence.

I recall at an anti-Vietnam War meeting someone insisted on violent action as the only means to bring about radical transformation. Later, I learned the cops had busted the person on drug charges and turned him over to the FBI, who offered to drop the charges in return for his inciting groups to commit mayhem.

Often the inciting has darker implications, when the agents supply weapons that are normally unobtainable to fringe groups, then "busts them". The news media covers the bust, and stirs public outrage about the "availability" of weapons, leading to more restrictive laws, without ever mentioning that it was the government that supplied the weapons in the first place.

Robert Dreyfuss writes:

By the now, it's maddeningly familiar. A scary terrorist plot is announced. Then it's revealed that the suspects are a hapless bunch of ne'er-do-wells or run-of-the-mill thugs without the slightest connection to any terrorists at all, never mind to Al Qaeda. Finally, the last piece of the puzzle: the entire plot is revealed to have been cooked up by a scummy government agent-provocateur.

...

Preying on these losers, none of whom were apparently actual Muslims, the "confidential informant" orchestrated the acquisition of a disabled Stinger missile to shoot down military planes and cooked up a wild scheme about attacking a Jewish center in the Bronx.

There's a moral here folks. It's not hard to spot the federal agent. He'll be the one at the Tea Party or the abortion protest or the gun show with the big mouth, wanting some action.

I do not understand this concept, and I'm hoping some clever readers might be able to help out.

Over and over, we are told that even if we disagree with the presidents' policies, we should "respect the office". What does that mean, exactly?

Is the President, by virtue of attaining the office, somehow in possession of superior physical or mental attributes, and thus should gain extra respect on account of physical or mental superiority to the rest of the citizens?

Or maybe the Office of President requires great concentration, and puts many heavy burdens on the man who holds it, and the respect asks that I give the President a wide berth so as not to disturb or distract from the weighty tasks?

Or is the respect one of fear, because the president, by virtue of the office, is capable of wielding great power and popping me in the slammer (or worse) at whim?

Perhaps, the respect for the office comes from the idea that the "Leader of the Free World" is a great humanitarian and uses the office to do wonderful things for humanity?

Is there another angle I'm missing? The second explanation is the most logical, but I never see that approach demonstrated in the application of the phrase "respect for the office". When Pittsburgh Steeler James Harrison turned down a social invitation to the White House, he was quite fulfilling the second explanation, and not taking the President away from his weighty and critical tasks, yet the Super Bowl winner was widely panned in the media for 'not respecting the office'. So, clearly not an application of the second, and most logical, interpretation.

What does it mean, then, "respect for the office"? Where does that respect come from, why is it deserved, and what does it demand that is different from respect for any other American?

The people behind the long table do not know what they've become. The drug of power has been sugared over in their mouths with a flavoring of righteousness. Someone has to make these decisions, they tell their friends at dinner parties. It's all very difficult for us. But you can see it in their eyes: It isn't really difficult at all. It feels good to them to be the ones who decide.

Monday, August 17, 2009

The debate over so-called "Healthcare Reform" has raged since the presidential debates. Obama is on the record saying health care is a right. The circus and sideshows of the past several weeks have been staged to convince us of the benefits and wonders and government largess that accompanies the "gifting" of a new right to the American people.

So just for a minute, let's stop and assume all this care and devotion were being applied to an existing right (you know, from the Bill of Rights). Just for a minute, let's imagine what that would have sounded like.

Imagine...

If what he really said was:This is not just about the 210 million Americans who have no guns." Obamasaid in a prepared statement at the start of that press conference."Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may losetheir gun if they get a divorce, get pulled over for a traffic stop, orbecome a veteran."

"I don't have to explain to you that nearly 210 million Americans don'thave personal self-defense weapons today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 210million of our fellow citizens don't have guns. They are just vulnerable. Ifsomething happens, they get murdered, or they don't get the protectionthey need."

"Now, when we pass keep and bear arms reform, local governments will nolonger be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of guns andammunition you can buy in a given year or a lifetime. And we will placea limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses,because no one in America should go broke because they need safety.(Applause.)

But let's face it, now is the hard part -- because the history is clear-- every time we come close to passing keep and bear arms reform, thespecial interests fight back with everything they've got. They use theirinfluence. They use their political allies to scare and mislead theAmerican people. They start running ads. This is what they always do.We can't let them do it again. Not this time. Not now. (Applause.)Because for all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary -- whatis truly risky -- is if we do nothing. If we let this moment pass -- ifwe keep the system the way it is right now -- we will continue to see3,927 Americans victimized by crime every day."